So targeting penalty in College Football

[Anonymous]

This rule was created to protect players but always seems to be overturned. So in effect it really does not protect the players.

In the Texas vs Arizona game a receiver is knocked out with a helmet to helmet hit. They review it for targeting but say it is not targeting. You can see similar plays in many colleges games. The NFL does a much better job with this. They have zero tolerance policy.

The NCAA needs to change this rule so there is no interpretation. If a player makes helmet to helmet contact it is targeting. Call and enforce the penalty or get rid of the rule.

[Anonymous]

My husband was just yelling at the TV about that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This rule was created to protect players but always seems to be overturned. So in effect it really does not protect the players.

In the Texas vs Arizona game a receiver is knocked out with a helmet to helmet hit. They review it for targeting but say it is not targeting. You can see similar plays in many colleges games. The NFL does a much better job with this. They have zero tolerance policy.

The NCAA needs to change this rule so there is no interpretation. If a player makes helmet to helmet contact it is targeting. Call and enforce the penalty or get rid of the rule.

I am no expert but I think it wasn’t a foul because he didn’t lower his head and lead with the crown of the helmet.

And also, Texas boosters Venmoed the officials more moneys than Arizona State boosters during the commercial break.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My husband was just yelling at the TV about that.

Does he have a troubled relationship with reality? Does he think the officials can hear him?

[Anonymous]

Terrible call. Refs gave it to Texas.

[Anonymous]

I think the first PP at 17:01 explained why. However, I agree it should be a penalty. They need to remove “intentional “ from the rule. It was ugly.

[Anonymous]

I’ve seen lesser offenses ruled targeting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My husband was just yelling at the TV about that.

Does he have a troubled relationship with reality? Does he think the officials can hear him?

Maybe if he yells loud enough? I've learned to ignore it for the most part.

[Anonymous]

What a tosser

[Anonymous]

That was a fun game to watch

Unlike OSU ducks

[Anonymous]

I agree, had the exact same reaction to that play. I was confused because when they were deciding if it was "targeting" I thought that doesn't sound right because I don't think the defender intentionally led with his helmet or hit him late. But then they ruled it to not be targeting and there was no penalty at all which was so weird.

In the NFL it would have been called for unnecessary roughness and it would have been an automatic 1st down. Instead, there was no penalty at all even though the receiver was hit with helmet-to-helmet contact in frankly scary tackle, and the offense wound up having to punt because it was 4th down. That's nuts!

Given how the game ended, that call was very consequential. And it made no sense.

I have been trying to give college football a look this year because if they create a real, competitive playoff tournament, it's a much more compelling sport to me. But crap like this doesn't help (also the tournament itself is still too beholden to the conference system which is, by its nature, anti-competitive and doesn't result in the best teams making the playoff). Sigh. Why do people watch this?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’ve seen lesser offenses ruled targeting.

So many different times. It’s so subjective, but should be called whether it’s the first quarter or a key play in the 4th.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This rule was created to protect players but always seems to be overturned. So in effect it really does not protect the players.

In the Texas vs Arizona game a receiver is knocked out with a helmet to helmet hit. They review it for targeting but say it is not targeting. You can see similar plays in many colleges games. The NFL does a much better job with this. They have zero tolerance policy.

The NCAA needs to change this rule so there is no interpretation. If a player makes helmet to helmet contact it is targeting. Call and enforce the penalty or get rid of the rule.

I am no expert but I think it wasn’t a foul because he didn’t lower his head and lead with the crown of the helmet.

And also, Texas boosters Venmoed the officials more moneys than Arizona State boosters during the commercial break.

He lowered his head and used it a weapon. Players have suffered serious injuries by doing the same thing. This rule is for the protection of the players…like grabbing the face mask. The defender clearly lead with the helmet and could not ever see what he was hitting. Horrible and cowardly call but par for the course for the NCAA.